Just wondering whether anyone had contemplated whether "upgrading" the JVC's output with the nanoFlash would be worth the considerable expense.

Of course, anyone with less than an HD250 would also have to add in the price (and extra physical box, cabling, power, etc.) of a component --> HD-SDI convertor.

Indeed, I'm planning on using it with my HD110. Blackmagic Design has a component to HD-SDI adapter box for ~$500.

Right -- just the convertor I was thinking of. Not sure how cumbersome mounting both the Blackmagic adaptor and the nanoFlash would be for run & gun?

I was basically wondering (greenscreen uses aside) whether the total expense of the upgrade would be really worth it in the end, although everyone has a different definition of this.

We'd still have "only" 720p, but the high bitrate & bigger colorspace could potentially breathe new life into the JVC and make one feel better about having an "older" camera body (in comparison the Sony EX3, etc.)

I suppose you could justify the purchase by knowing that you could later attach the nanoFlash to your next camera...although the nanoFlash Mark 2 or 3 might be out by the time that purchase happens...

JVC had a comparison video on their website, demonstrating the diff between the onboard MPEG2 compression vs 4:2:2 capture from their component out port. There was a distinct difference in image quality.

In addition, long form GOP compression introduces substantial motion blur due to compression artifacting. My hope is that the higher bitrate of the codec in nanoflash will make this artifacting significantly better.

In theory, it's all great. The question is whether it's worth doubling (or whatever) the price of the camera.

I'll be very interested to hear your experience, as well as see pictures of your mounting solutions.

I currently have a DR-HD100 (unfortunately, as having to sell off this first makes the whole idea that much less attractive). I've never been happy with the size/weight of the unit or with any of the official mounting solutions. I'm not sure how both the Blackmagic adaptor and the nanoFlash will work out mounting-wise. It's a shame that we need to fuss around with the adaptor...

I think Mike and the team are working on mounting solutions for the various cameras. Thought I also heard that the XDR will detect on/off camera power and either turn on/off or go into standby mode when this happens - nice feature.
I'm sure there'll be a huge jump in image quality, most notably at 60P with fast moving subjects - 160 mb/sec I-frame vs 20 mb/sec Long GOP has got to be a huge stpe in the right direction.
Steve

You have a concern, if shoulder or boom holding, but, if it's tripod mounted, there must be a million solutions. The whole recorder HAS to be easier than lugging around a damn capture laptop.

Just wondering whether anyone had contemplated whether "upgrading" the JVC's output with the nanoFlash would be worth the considerable expense....

I'm definitely considering going that route. I'm trying to determine which camera to purchase (110 or 200) and then go the analog converter to SDI method.

It not only allows you to record from the camera at a cleaner 4:2:2 pathway, but also provides a way to get a higher quality 24 bit audio recording.

This pathway seems to be a very good way to squeeze every bit of quality from the cam on the original recording without eating an over abundance of storage capacity.

You have a concern, if shoulder or boom holding, but, if it's tripod mounted, there must be a million solutions. The whole recorder HAS to be easier than lugging around a damn capture laptop.

Agreed -- just wondering whether the nanoFlash/Blackmagic combo will be even worse shoulder/hand-held than the DR-HD100 already is.

This pathway seems to be a very good way to squeeze every bit of quality from the cam on the original recording without eating an over abundance of storage capacity.

Makes perfect sense -- just trying to figure out whether the considerable expense would be better spent put toward a new generation of camera...

Yeah, it's a bit of a risk. The fact that it can be mounted to any camera with HD-SDI output will lengthen Nanoflash's useful lifetime. I think it will be a while before 50-100Mb/sec data streams are available in prosumer cameras to onboard storage solutions. Comparing to the Panny P2, this solution is a bit cheaper than investing in a slew of very expensive P2 cards.

Then, there's the issue of how to injest high data rate streams with "conventional" computer equipment. I don't get why cam makers haven't adopted CF cards for storage. It will surprise me if they did, at this point. Maybe C-D will force them into it, who knows? We've been "stuck" with the archane 1394, and even more arcane USB bus in all it's glorious incarnations, for so long, what's the problem with OEM's? Maybe, one of these days, HD-SDI will come standard on a laptop....nah!

I don't get why cam makers haven't adopted CF cards for storage. It will surprise me if they did, at this point.
They have. The Z7 and the S270.

And what will be interesting is to see what JVC and Canon do next. Whether it's as well as or instead of tape, and what bit rates it's capable of. But I strongly suspect solid state must feature in their plans fairly soon, and for them Compact Flash would make a lot of sense. (They don't have the P2 baggage that Panasonic do, and SxS in the EX seems more like doing the spadework for forthcoming high end SxS cameras than the EX needs SxS.)

Also, don't forget that lower end cameras are using standard SD cards.

I think Mike and the team are working on mounting solutions for the various cameras. Thought I also heard that the XDR will detect on/off camera power and either turn on/off or go into standby mode when this happens - nice feature.
I'm sure there'll be a huge jump in image quality, most notably at 60P with fast moving subjects - 160 mb/sec I-frame vs 20 mb/sec Long GOP has got to be a huge stpe in the right direction.
Steve

Hi Steve-
You are correct about the power standby mode in the nanoFlash. We can detect the presence / absence of an incoming HD-SDI stream and go into active or standby mode as appropriate. It looks like the "boot-up" time will be on the order of 3 seconds. Active power should be under 8 Watts, while standby will be under 0.5 Watts. We are also including a total power-down time out, which shuts off the box after a preprogrammed time-out. (All of these power saving features can be disabled).

We are also adding a number of new programmable power saving features such as turning off the HD-SDI output, auto power down of the LCD backlight and power down of the RS232/485 and LTC inputs. Reduction of power is a major design effort on the nanoFlash as we are greatly reducing the size (about 18% the volume of Flash XDR), so we have to cut every last bit of power to avoid the use of a fan.

Regarding the video quality, I think many people will be pleasantly surprised at how well the 100 Mbps Long-GOP holds up even in high-motion scenes. It sure looks superb in our tests, but I'm sure everyone will want to run their own comparison shots.

They have. The Z7 and the S270.

And what will be interesting is to see what JVC and Canon do next. Whether it's as well as or instead of tape, and what bit rates it's capable of. But I strongly suspect solid state must feature in their plans fairly soon, and for them Compact Flash would make a lot of sense. (They don't have the P2 baggage that Panasonic do, and SxS in the EX seems more like doing the spadework for forthcoming high end SxS cameras than the EX needs SxS.)

Also, don't forget that lower end cameras are using standard SD cards.

Hi David-
I think that 95% of the professional cameras will have some sort of solid-state recording in the next 2-3 years. It will be interesting to watch these developments, especially with regard to the CODEC choices as well as the type of solid-state memory.

We chose CompactFlash because it has sufficient write speeds for high-quality MPEG2 video, is widely available and low-cost (compared to SxS and P2). SxS does have much higher read/write speeds (800 Mbps vs 400 Mbps for the fastest CF cards), but you pay a heavy price for a slight reduction in the download time. I don't think P2 has any performance advantage over Compact Flash whatsoever.

My other question relates to having to use the Blackmagic A/D convertor box in the chain. Besides the obvious irritation of having to mount and cable this, does anyone know whether this will be significantly degrading the signal vs. if the JVC had the HD-SDI natively?

I guess the best comparison would be testing an HD200 & Blackmagic convertor combo against the HD250's HD-SDI output.

Otherwise, I'm wondering whether anyone here has had experience with this convertor on other cameras and can comment on how well it does.

My other question relates to having to use the Blackmagic A/D convertor box in the chain. Besides the obvious irritation of having to mount and cable this, does anyone know whether this will be significantly degrading the signal vs. if the JVC had the HD-SDI natively?

I guess the best comparison would be testing an HD200 & Blackmagic convertor combo against the HD250's HD-SDI output.

Otherwise, I'm wondering whether anyone here has had experience with this convertor on other cameras and can comment on how well it does.

Hi Brent-
Check out this analog vs digital comparison video using a JVC HD50 deck (720p50 HDV footage). The digital portion was captured via our nanoConnect (an HDMI to HD-SDI) while the analog capture used the component output from the deck. The video sweeps from analog to digital. You see the differences immediately.

http://convergent-design.fileburst.com/AvD.wmv

Hi Brent-
Check out this analog vs digital comparison video using a JVC HD50 deck (720p50 HDV footage). The digital portion was captured via our nanoConnect (an HDMI to HD-SDI) while the analog capture used the component output from the deck. The video sweeps from analog to digital. You see the differences immediately.

http://convergent-design.fileburst.com/AvD.wmv

Mike,

I'm not at a computer at the moment, so I can't view the file right now. But I'm assuming that the news isn't good for the component outs.

So assuming your converter is at least as good as the Blackmagic some of us would consider using along with the nanoFlash, then I guess you're saying this venture would be an expensive waste of time?

If so, I do appreciate your honesty. And I curse JVC for only putting a digital out on the HD251, when you can get digital output on junky camcorders from Best Buy.

Brent...

I'm not sure you got the message. In the footage Mike refers to, which is the same footage I was referring to in my earlier post, the images captured via component->HDMI->BMD Intensity Card(19Mbps, 4:2:2, 10-bit) was quite superior to the compressed footage(4:2:0, 8-bit) captured thru the firewire port. The difference being the Intensity solution requires a computer to capture instead of a nanoflash/Flash XDR.

Brent...

I'm not sure you got the message. In the footage Mike refers to, which is the same footage I was referring to in my earlier post, the images captured via component->HDMI->BMD Intensity Card(19Mbps, 4:2:2, 10-bit) was quite superior to the compressed footage(4:2:0, 8-bit) captured thru the firewire port. The difference being the Intensity solution requires a computer to capture instead of a nanoflash/Flash XDR.

Ah -- I'm reading these posts on my Blackberry, so I guess I misunderstood. But what I'm really trying to ascertain is what degradation might we experience as a result of having to convert the analog component outs into HD-SDI in the first place, in order that we can then run that signal into the nanoFlash? Obviously the nanoFlash is intended to be used with cameras which have digital outs onboard, but JVC users of anything other than the HD250 have to stick an outboard A/D converter in the chain. So I'm wondering what will we be missing in the nanoFlash experience (other than the cost and inconvenience of another box) that users of native HD-SDI cameras will have? In other words, will we be spending a considerable amount of money on the nanoFlash, only to have its benefits limited by the fact that we have to stick that Blackmagic converter in the chain?

IMHO, if you use a high quality converter, at least 10-bit, like either the BMD or C-D nanoconnect, the image will be noticeably better. That's exactly what the footage Mike Schell referred you to, will show, as it was recorded with an HD100. The image should be comparable to the HD250 image out. I think component analog signals degrade with distance, so, you want to connect the converter box as close to the camera ports as possible.

Ah -- I'm reading these posts on my Blackberry, so I guess I misunderstood. But what I'm really trying to ascertain is what degradation might we experience as a result of having to convert the analog component outs into HD-SDI in the first place, in order that we can then run that signal into the nanoFlash? Obviously the nanoFlash is intended to be used with cameras which have digital outs onboard, but JVC users of anything other than the HD250 have to stick an outboard A/D converter in the chain. So I'm wondering what will we be missing in the nanoFlash experience (other than the cost and inconvenience of another box) that users of native HD-SDI cameras will have? In other words, will we be spending a considerable amount of money on the nanoFlash, only to have its benefits limited by the fact that we have to stick that Blackmagic converter in the chain?

I apoologize, but I did not fully explain the comparison video, as this would clearly answer your question. The JVC comparison clip, available at: http://convergent-design.fileburst.com/AvD.wmv sweeps between an analog and digital capture into an NLE system. You can clearly see the improved quality via the digital capture.

The video was originally shot on a JVC 200 series camera in 720p. The HDV tape was then transferred to a JVC HD50 deck. The video was captured into an NLE via two separate paths:

1) HDMI (from the HD50 deck) -> nanoConnect -> HD-SDI -> NLE
2) Analog Component (from the HD50 deck) -> NLE capture card (I think it was a Blackmagic card).

The two captures were placed on two tracks in the timeline. The final video was created by sweeping back and forth between the two clips.
So, watching the video you can clearly see the effects of the analog capture vs the digital capture.

However, the overall quality of the video you will see using the analog outputs from the JVC camera -> HD-SDI converter -> nanoFlash, will of course, be much higher. The original video was heavily compressed by the HDV CODEC in JVC camera, a live feed from the camera will not have this compression and will be in full 4:2:2 color space.

So, yes there is some loss going the analog conversion route. But, in my experience the loss due to the HDV compression and 4:2:2 -> 4:2:0 conversion, is much greater.

Thanks for that detailed explanation, Mike -- I'll be sure to check out those samples.

I'm not surprised to hear that using the BMD converter/nanoFlash combo would be a step up from HDV.

I guess what I'm questioning is whether the expense of this is justified by the gain (though everyone will have their own definition of this).
If the JVC HD100/110/200 had SDI out, then I might jump at the nanoFlash. I guess my concern is how much image quality would I be losing by having to go through that initial A/D conversion step? If the nanoFlash were 1/4 of the price, then I probably wouldn't worry about it. But the whole combo is a big expense, and I worry that I'd feel maybe the money should have been put toward a Scarlet (or whatever).

It's the JVC's lack of HD-SDI that's really making this decision complicated for me.

I assume you get the same from HDMI as you do from HDSDI, once you've got all the right connections made. Even the HDSDI has to go through A/D conversion doesn't it, as the CCD is analogue, so the HDMI should just be the same process and once it's coming out of the HDMI plug and going into any of the Convegent Designs units it's digital all the way. Assuming that's the case then jumping up from 19 to 100 mb/sec or to 160 mb/sec I-Frame has got to be huge!
Steve

kinda my thinking, too, Steve. I think it's analog RGB coming off of the sensor block. A-D converters, in the camera, digitize to YUV for storage and compression. Question is, "does the component signal come before or after the digitizing process?" If it comes after, then there are at least 2 conversions before the component port gets the signal.

kinda my thinking, too, Steve. I think it's analog RGB coming off of the sensor block. A-D converters, in the camera, digitize to YUV for storage and compression. Question is, "does the component signal come before or after the digitizing process?" If it comes after, then there are at least 2 conversions before the component port gets the signal.

Every camera requires an A/D to convert the CMOS/CCD analog sensor voltage to a digital value. After that analog conversion, all the subsequent processing is made in the digital domain. If the output is HD-SDI or HDMI, then there is no analog conversion losses on output (the HDMI signal is essentially identical to HD-SDI).

If however, you go the component analog output route, then you have an D/A conversion (inside the camera) followed by a A/D conversion inside the NLE capture card (or the external converter).

Time permitting, we will test these two conversion paths using our Flash XDR / nanoFlash set at 50/100 Mbps. I feel confident you'll see substantial gains from the higher bit-rate, but it is very difficult to quantify the various effects of analog conversion followed by compression.

...The JVC comparison clip, available at: http://convergent-design.fileburst.com/AvD.wmv sweeps between an analog and digital capture into an NLE system. You can clearly see the improved quality via the digital capture....

That's a very effective comparison. It's almost unbelievable to get the sharpness difference between an already compressed video signal.

I'd like to see you repeat the test when the NANOflash is ready... going through a BlackMagic (or equivalent) analog component to HD-SDI conversion.

I can see alot of JVC owners willing to step away from tape (decks, dropouts) and the dreaded be careful not to blow the firewire port.

A follow up question, Which editing programs are the friendliest to this recording format? Will some users need to convert the files to a different format for editing? Has any testing been done with color correction in this native format?

That's a very effective comparison. It's almost unbelievable to get the sharpness difference between an already compressed video signal.

I'd like to see you repeat the test when the NANOflash is ready... going through a BlackMagic (or equivalent) analog component to HD-SDI conversion.

I can see alot of JVC owners willing to step away from tape (decks, dropouts) and the dreaded be careful not to blow the firewire port.

A follow up question, Which editing programs are the friendliest to this recording format? Will some users need to convert the files to a different format for editing? Has any testing been done with color correction in this native format?

Hi Jim-
Final Cut Pro has the best support now, Avid is not too far behind. We will be sending out test files to all the NLE manufacturers in the near future for compatibility tests.

Some users may need to convert the files. Worse come to worse, you can ingest via the HD-SDI output from the Flash XDR / nanoFlash. But, I doubt many users will have to go this route.

Here's our list of the Ten Top Reasons to Go (Solid State) Tapeless

1) No Digitization/Capture
a. No need to digitize (convert from analog to digital) your analog video tape or to perform a laborious 1X capture of your material (no more batch captures).
b. Edit instantly from the solid-state media (card).
c. Transfers to other media (hard-drives) are performed at speeds much greater than real-time (typically 3x to 6x)
d. Random access to any frame in any clip, no need to fast-forward / rewind tape.
e. No drop-outs or time-code breaks!

2) No Deck Required
a. Significant initial (purchase) cost savings as well as long-term maintenance (head/drum replacement) cost savings.
b. Solid-state memory card readers are very low in cost (US $60), very reliable, and do not require maintenance.

3) Lower weight, size, noise, vibration and power
a. Much lower weight (3 lbs vs. 5 ~ 50 lbs)
b. Much smaller (1/4 to 1/10 the overall volume)
c. Zero noise (no fans)
d. No vibration (no moving parts inside)
e. Very low power consumption (12W vs 40 ~ 100W)

4) Performance increases as size decreases
a. Hard-drive performance decreases with smaller physical size drives (due to slower rotational speeds). For example, 1.8” drives don’t have insufficient I/O performance for data-rates much above 35 to 40 Mbps. Hard drive performance also drops off as the volume reaches capacity.
b. Solid-state performance, on the other hand, improves with decreasing chip size and the performance is uniform across the entire volume.
c. Tape storage capacity is directly related to the physical size of the tape for a given technology. If you want more capacity on your tape, you have to buy a physically larger cartridge. Solid State media capacity continues to double every 12-18 months, while the physical size of the media remains constant.

5) Superior Reliability
a. No mechanical parts to fail / tape to jam.
b. Much better reliability in harsh conditions.
c. Will work in extreme conditions, where a tape-drive will likely fail, such as in very high humidity.

6) Instant Replay
a. Instant review of just recorded footage can revolutionize shooting on the set. Catching problems while on the set, before striking the set, can be priceless. The director can ensure that he or she has the desired footage without any worries about rewinding tape or time-code breaks.
b. Even during a playback session, recording starts immediately, as appropriate, without a delay to reposition the tape.
c. The system is ready to record instantly, even during a playback session. All recording is done after the last recorded file, no need to position the tape. No danger of recording over valuable footage, one of the main reasons that rewinding and playback of tape is discouraged on the set.

7) Redundant Recording
a. Identical video can be written to multiple cards simultaneously, an impossible option with tape and difficult to achieve with portable hard-drives.
b. In the unlikely case of a media error, the other original will be unaffected.
c. Individual masters can be transported via independent means for safety.
d. One card can be handed-off to an editor, while a second card is given to the producer/director for review on a PC/MAC.

8) MetaData Support
a. The ability to document and record extra data about each take is very useful in post and while reviewing footage.
b. User specified metadata can be very useful for a production (director, cameraman, take, event, location, camera number, etc.)
c. Custom notes about a take can be recorded with the audio and video.
d. Takes can be easily marked as Bad, Good, or “Best”.

9) Wider Operating Environment
a. Solid-state media works at extreme hot and cold temperatures.
b. Hard disk drives cannot be used at high altitudes or in very cold conditions.
c. Few problems from condensation when going from one environment to another.
d. Operates in high G-Force conditions (airplanes, helicopters, race-cars), where tape or hard-drives would fail.

10) Ever decreasing costs
a. Tape costs have bottomed out and show no signs of further cost reductions.
b. Solid state media has a significant track record of providing higher capacity and lower cost each year.
c. Solid state media is already used in many professional environments (such as digital cameras).
d. Our industry can benefit from the widespread use, wide availability, high volume, and low cost of solid-state media (such as CompactFlash).

I watched the clip and I have to say, the HDV portion looks pretty rough to me.

I also agree a test using a 250 model with a Nano recording SDI out, a Nano recording component out (with converter) and recording to tape at the same time would be very useful.

This would show all options and we could see how much the Nano is affecting image quality.

I watched the clip and I have to say, the HDV portion looks pretty rough to me...
...


That's why I would like to see it re-tested. Both clips are HDV compressed. For some reason they didn't do a comparison to regular HDV captured in it's native format. The extra analog conversion is NOT going to make HDV look better. It gives the look of having the backfocus slightly out of focus and the blacks are a little brighter.

We know that the JVC 250 is best option for the NanoFLASH...but, I would like to see a comparison w/ a 100 series (since there are more 100's out there) converted to HD-SDI and then compared to what the camera gets off tape in it's native HDV format.

The current test does make you wish that JVC had a HDMI out on the camera...if in fact, the current component analog outs go through a D/A conversion.

Dear Jim,

Personnally, I feel that the only way to tell if the component outputs of any camera, through a component to HD-SDI converter XDR will be good enough, will be to test it.

Camera manufacturers use various grades of Digital to Analog converters in their camera's circuits. These D to A converters help determine the quality of the component outputs.

The same applies to component to HD-SDI converters. Not all are created equal. This could be a case where you usually get what you pay for. In order to achieve great quality, great components and careful attention to design details is essential.

It seems apparent to me, that for certain cameras, the component outputs were intended for monitoring only, and the tape drive was meant for recording.

As such, it was up to the manufacturer to decide on the quality of the component output circuits. I do not think much thought was given to the concept of recording via the component outputs, but I could be wrong.

In any case, the component outputs are available on many cameras, and they probably are good enough for you to consider recording from these outputs.

If you feel that your camera's component outputs are good enough, then converting the outputs to HD-SDI and then recording via a nanoFlash or Flash XDR may work out fine. Time will tell, and we do intend on testing this as soon as we get time.

Of course, there is an inherent advantage of recording from the component outputs as they have not gone through the compression process.

In any case, the component outputs should be superior to the Firewire (IEEE 1394) output in terms of quality.

One side advantage is that no one ever hears about a component output being damaged, but blown Firewire ports are reported occasionally. If one has a blown Firewire port, the component outputs are usually still available and working.

I have access to a JVC HD100u (with a blown Firewire port). I hope to borrow a component to HD-SDI converter and then test it with my Flash XDR (shortly after I get mine).

Please note that the recording quality of the nanoFlash and the Flash XDR will be the same, for the same compression rate. So testing a camera's component outputs with a Flash XDR will indicate how well it will work with the upcoming nanoFlash.

Last year, on the set of "Deadland", we used a HVX200 with a Red Rock 35 mm adapter. We used an AJA component to HD-SDI converter and it worked great. We monitored our shots with a Sony LMD-2450 monitor and the image was outstanding.

This year, on the set of "Perfect Disguise", we used a JVC HD100u, with a Red Rock, and we used the component outputs to the Sony LMD-2450 monitor. During the shooting of this movie, the Firewire port was blown. We were recording via Firewire to a Firestore.

I can report that we had some trouble with the Firewire cable falling out at times. But we never had trouble with the component cables coming loose.

That's why I would like to see it re-tested. Both clips are HDV compressed. For some reason they didn't do a comparison to regular HDV captured in it's native format. The extra analog conversion is NOT going to make HDV look better. It gives the look of having the backfocus slightly out of focus and the blacks are a little brighter.

We know that the JVC 250 is best option for the NanoFLASH...but, I would like to see a comparison w/ a 100 series (since there are more 100's out there) converted to HD-SDI and then compared to what the camera gets off tape in it's native HDV format.

The current test does make you wish that JVC had a HDMI out on the camera...if in fact, the current component analog outs go through a D/A conversion.

Hi Jim-
After we get the initial Flash XDR units shipped this next week, we'll go back and do more tests with the analog conversion. I agree, it's difficult to access the quality without using the exact setup: analog converter + nanoFlash.

I can absolutely guarantee you that the analog outputs from the JVC camera go through a D/A conversion. That's the only possible way to get analog video out, since all the internal processing is done in the digital domain.

Several comments, re: the intrinsic value of "uncompressed", CF storage, even if comparative video is not yet available...

1-My EX1(which has HD-SDI port) suffers quite noticeably from long form GOP motion artifacts. The effect of compressing, even at 35mb/sec, are very noticeable in the form of image blurring, especially on full frame pans. I think this is an inherent weaknes of HDv compression format, because my HD110 suffers from the same motion artifacts. The conventional wisdom is that these artifacts are negligible, due to ordinary motion blur. I, wholeheartedly, disagree. I'm very anxious to see whether I-frame compression mitigates compression artifacts for full frame pans.

2-I routinely use m2t compression on a Firestore FS4HD. These units are quite expensive(I own two of them, and rely on a hard disk a a fair bit of battery power, to record data). By comparison, the SxS SS storage on my EX1 is quite a bit more convenient for replaying clips, uploading to my NLE, and marking circle takes. Unfortunately, SxS cards are prohibitively expensive and they require a very expensive card reader on my desktop workstation.I quite look forward to relatively inexpensive CF card storage for the convenience. I have a ton of CF cards laying around, already, mostly of the 8Gb 133x variety.

3-My understanding is that the Flash recorder is also a playback device. The ability to export rendered 100Mb/sec files to an HD-SDI capabale monitor is very enticing.

Several comments, re: the intrinsic value of "uncompressed", CF storage, even if comparative video is not yet available...

1-My EX1(which has HD-SDI port) suffers quite noticeably from long form GOP motion artifacts. The effect of compressing, even at 35mb/sec, are very noticeable in the form of image blurring, especially on full frame pans. I think this is an inherent weaknes of HDv compression format, because my HD110 suffers from the same motion artifacts. The conventional wisdom is that these artifacts are negligible, due to ordinary motion blur. I, wholeheartedly, disagree. I'm very anxious to see whether I-frame compression mitigates compression artifacts for full frame pans.

2-I routinely use m2t compression on a Firestore FS4HD. These units are quite expensive(I own two of them, and rely on a hard disk a a fair bit of battery power, to record data). By comparison, the SxS SS storage on my EX1 is quite a bit more convenient for replaying clips, uploading to my NLE, and marking circle takes. Unfortunately, SxS cards are prohibitively expensive and they require a very expensive card reader on my desktop workstation.I quite look forward to relatively inexpensive CF card storage for the convenience. I have a ton of CF cards laying around, already, mostly of the 8Gb 133x variety.

3-My understanding is that the Flash recorder is also a playback device. The ability to export rendered 100Mb/sec files to an HD-SDI capabale monitor is very enticing.

Hi Bill-
Long-GOP MPEG2 (the type of compression used in HDV) is intrinsically more prone to motion artifacts than I-Frame only compression. Long-GOP uses both spatial (I-Frame) and Temporal (P,B Frames) to compress the video. The P and B frames are created by compressing the differences from the initial I-Frame. In a 15-Frame GOP, there can be considerable differences from the first to last frame, especially in a high-motion shot.

However, as the bit-rate is increased, this motion blurring can be reduced substantially, by applying additional MPEG2 tricks, which amount to basically inserting a new I-Frame in the middle of the GOP.

So, I would recommend that you test both I-Frame only and high bit-rate (100 Mbps) Long-GOP MPEG2 before making a final decision. I have been pleasantly surprised at how well the Long-GOP compression holds up to high motion conditions. But, everyone has there only definition as to acceptable quality.

Yes, you are correct, both the Flash XDR and nanoFlash have HD-SDI playback capability. I think there will be many applications for capturing video directly from you NLE into nanoFlash and then using the nano as a very high-quality playback device (client review, museums, projectors, etc)

I also agree a test using a 250 model with a Nano recording SDI out, a Nano recording component out (with converter) and recording to tape at the same time would be very useful.

This would show all options and we could see how much the Nano is affecting image quality.


Agreed -- very much looking forward to this test, as this will really determine whether it's worth it to pursue this path. Not sure whether the component out circuitry on the HD100 and HD200 series are identical, otherwise I'm sure the HD100/110 users will want that tested as well.

The converter will also make a difference in the comparison, but it seems that the new BMD Analog-SDI would be the one people might use...